Toby agreed and received some superficial burns to both of his ears. The injury that Toby suffered is superficial burns to both of his ears although this could fall under S20 (maliciously inflicting GBH or Maliciously wounding). The actus reus is inflicting grievous bodily harm which in this case is the superficial burns. The mens rea for S20 is not intent but some foresight that some harm might result as stated
Becker argued that it is not a certain behaviour or act that is deviant but it is how we react to it that makes it deviant. Therefore ‘deviance’ is a relative concept as there is no fix agreement on what they mean For example homosexuality was labelled deviant and illegal in the past but now the same behaviour is acceptable. Becker famously said “a deviant is simply someone to whom the label has been successfully applied” therefore crime and deviance are the product of the labelling processes. However some sociologist point out that this argument implies that deviancy wouldn’t exist without labelling however sociologist Cohen argues that crime and deviance will exist from when there is status frustration. Cohen argues that Working class boys are often at the bottom of the status hierarchy because of failing the opportunity structure of education and the inability to get a good job.
Smokers Get a Raw Deal by Stanley S. Scott addresses the issue of whether there is discrimination against smokers in the United States. Scott believes that there is negative discrimination in the U.S. that infringes the rights of the citizens. One can find that although the writer believes he presents a secure case, he fails to understand the definition of “discrimination.” In the article, Scott essentially asks the readers to heed the ways in which laws, especially antismoking laws, are established. This could have been a good argument were it not for the bombardment of fallacies and incidents taken out of context. He only presents one premise, that laws facilitate the segregation between smokers and nonsmokers, and consequently allow organized crimes harassing smokers to occur.
Torts Outline Geistfeld—Spring 2005 1) Intentional Torts a) Battery: i) Elements (1) A acts, (2) Intending to cause (a) Harmful contact with P or (b) Contact with P that is offensive and (dignitary harm—not always recognized) (3) A’s act causes such contact. ii) Difference between battery and negligence—negligence is when the D has wrong the P by failing to take sufficient care to avoid harming her. iii) Intent: will have to rely on circumstantial evidence, since mental states are not observable. (1) First issue is motive, but it generally does not matter, since why you did it is not relevant. We’re thinking about rules that govern interactions—objective rather than subjective standard.
If Barbie does not die Ken can still be hit with a charge for disclosing the fact that he had aids. Ken would probably get hit with intentional transmission which is when you fail to inform your partner that you don't have aids. Theres is also a possibility that Ken wont get charged because the laws are still very blurry when it comes to the transmission of aids. What is Homicide? Homicide is murder but not all homicides are illegal some are considered justified homicide an example of justified homicide is when its done as an act of self defense.
Thinking about it more, I realized that hate-crimes legislation doesn't aim to punish the actual crime, but rather the motive (or thoughts) behind it. That's smacks of being more than a little Orwellian to me, besides being something that's very difficult to prove. If someone is continually spouting hateful speech, there's a pretty good chance you can figure out that their motive for a crime might be related to that hate. But what about someone who doesn't give any
Moral ambiguity is a state of character in which the subject is unable to be indentified as purely good or purely evil. Roger Chillingworth, the main antagonist is often considered to be purely evil. Although, contrary to what some critics may contend, a close reading of The Scarlett Letter reveals that Chillingworth is, in fact, morally ambiguous, rather than purely evil. There are many points in the story where this becomes clear, but they are often overlooked or misunderstood. In the novel, Chillingworth displays malevolence and iniquity.
According to Justice Rehnquist, “double jeopardy should not apply to contempt charges because it is a separate and distinguishable offense, and the elements of contempt are entirely different from the elements of the substantive crimes from which the contempt charges arose.” Justice Blackmun also dissents, noting that Contempt is one of few mechanisms available to a trial court in order to enforce its orders and it should be considered as separate and distinct because it is serving the court’s interest as opposed to that of the government. But not all the justices agreed with the ruling. Concurrence. Justice White concurs, noting that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for an offense if the defendant already has been held in contempt for its commission. Justice White goes on to note; however, that all of Foster’s counts on indictment should have also been dismissed.
An example is when the Miranda Doctrine is not observed upon arresting, the right of self-incrimination may be invoked so as for the evidences against the defense be inadmissible. In order for the Miranda Doctrine to be validly executed, such must be stated in the presence of the counsel for the defense. Such doctrine may be waived, but must be made with utmost knowledge of its consequences (Israel et al, 1993). Although both Fifth and Sixth Amendments embody significant rights for the citizens, it still has differences, one of which is that pertaining to the inquiries pertaining to the case is not allowed in the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth amendment protects the accused upon the case against him.
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.